Speaking from the standpoint of someone who has 2 family members who work in rehab centers for this sort of thing. The 14 year old who is made a sex offender because he had sex with another similarly aged kid is a lot rarer than the above blog would indicate. At least locally.

I agree with you. I believe that the most people have some common sense and wouldn't call the police just because of two teenagers making out. But sometimes, it is happening. It's terrible enough that it's even possible to make a 15-year-old boy a sex offender for doing something completely normal. And even if someone thinks that this is bad behaviour, it is not necessary to ruin the boy's whole life.

Joined: 09 Jul 2006Posts: 9702Location: I have to be somewhere? ::runs around frantically::

Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:05 pm Post subject:

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:

Speaking from the standpoint of someone who has 2 family members who work in rehab centers for this sort of thing. The 14 year old who is made a sex offender because he had sex with another similarly aged kid is a lot rarer than the above blog would indicate. At least locally.

Rehabilitation for people who are actually a danger = great!

Putting a 14 yr old on a sex offender list for having relations with a similarly aged person = horrible. It even reduces the effectiveness of the list. Because then the people referenced above can use the idea that they were just having sex with their 17 yr old significant other as why they got on the list. Then they might still be able to get close to kids.

The list is useless when you include numerous people that have not done damage to children._________________Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael

Yep. An 17-year-old boy who gets caught having consensual sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend goes on the same list, and gets treated the same as, a 50-year-old man who rapes a 17-year-old girl.

That's sometimes, but not always, true. The categories of offenders that go on sex offender registries differ from state to state, as do the laws about what does and does not constitute criminal sexual contact between minors. A number of states have so-called "Romeo and Juliet" exceptions to their stat rape laws, so that individuals within a certain number of years of each other, normally two or three, aren't guilty of a crime for having sex. But others don't. And states that do pass those statutes normally don't go through their sex offender registries and purge people who've already been convicted that wouldn't have been guilty under the new law. And there are states that throw other random crimes, like public urination, in there along with rape and lewd conduct with a minor as appropriate for the registry. Then they ban anyone who's convicted of any of those crimes from going within 1000 feet of a school, church or park, or holding certain jobs, or what have you. The unintended consequence of which is that a lot of people who aren't serial child predators are de facto banned from living with their families or sleeping in most homeless shelters, et cetera.

Of course, manifest injustices notwithstanding, there's very little chance that the laws are going to be made less severe, because what politician wants his opponent talking about how he went to bat for sex offenders during the next election campaign?_________________"Whatever afflicts thee, their asses I shall kick"

Yep. An 17-year-old boy who gets caught having consensual sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend goes on the same list, and gets treated the same as, a 50-year-old man who rapes a 17-year-old girl.

That's sometimes, but not always, true. The categories of offenders that go on sex offender registries differ from state to state, as do the laws about what does and does not constitute criminal sexual contact between minors. A number of states have so-called "Romeo and Juliet" exceptions to their stat rape laws, so that individuals within a certain number of years of each other, normally two or three, aren't guilty of a crime for having sex. But others don't. And states that do pass those statutes normally don't go through their sex offender registries and purge people who've already been convicted that wouldn't have been guilty under the new law. And there are states that throw other random crimes, like public urination, in there along with rape and lewd conduct with a minor as appropriate for the registry. Then they ban anyone who's convicted of any of those crimes from going within 1000 feet of a school, church or park, or holding certain jobs, or what have you. The unintended consequence of which is that a lot of people who aren't serial child predators are de facto banned from living with their families or sleeping in most homeless shelters, et cetera.

Of course, manifest injustices notwithstanding, there's very little chance that the laws are going to be made less severe, because what politician wants his opponent talking about how he went to bat for sex offenders during the next election campaign?

Yeah, but with a good enough spin doctor someone might look "out of touch" for putting teenagers in jail for what comes naturally, especially if there are a lot of people in the respective voting district who have been or are related to teenage parents. Today's devil is tomorrow's victim, it just depends on the overall climate. The laws definitely need to be overhauled. I mean, even wacky bar antics might get slapped with a registration for life._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

I don't think any politician is going to be caught coming down on the side of teenagers who had sex--in a society that would prefer them not having sex at all--and get punished for the rest of their lives on a sex offender registry. Any politician with any sort of political savvy would rather stick with such a draconian system than be seen as "weak on crime."

I think the decline in advocacy for abstinence only education is kinda to the contrary though._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

IMO the root problem is people wanting to legislate details of guilty verdicts rather than trusting to a judges discretion. Oregon is particularly bad about that, as once you hit..i think its 14, you're tried as an adult here._________________

What happens if two 15 year old boys are caught having sex? Are both of them placed on the sex offenders register for abusing each other, or is the pitcher deemed to be the rapist?

Being considered a sex offender for allowing your buddy to sodomise you would be bad times.

There are some jurisdictions where sodomy between a marry couple is illegal_________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake